Can I respectfully suggest that you read the well over 120 objections to the current planning application for the site. The area is liable to severe flooding and the wastewater system is incapable of coping with any more houses. Also access to the roadway from the site is very dangerous.

Please may I object to this plan on the following grounds:

Landscape and AONB Impact: The proposed development of greenfield sites in Fairlight would cause significant harm to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). These sites provide a vital transition between the built-up area and the open countryside. Development here would create a hard urban edge that is entirely uncharacteristic of the village’s rural setting and landscape beauty.

Infrastructure and Sustainability: Fairlight lacks the necessary infrastructure—including schools, healthcare facilities, and local shops—to support a significant increase in population. As a village with limited public transport links, further residential growth will inevitably lead to increased car dependency and put unsustainable pressure on the narrow local road network.

Drainage and Sewage Capacity: There are long-standing and well-documented capacity issues with the local sewerage system and surface water drainage. Further development risks exacerbating these problems, leading to increased environmental risks and potential flooding or overflow issues that Southern Water has yet to adequately address in the area.

Coastal Stability: Given Fairlight’s sensitive location within a Coastal Change Management Area, the cumulative impact of additional development on local hydrology and ground stability must be a primary concern.

See attached.

FA1 - planning applications on this site have been turned down previous. Fairlight and the roads into it do not have capacity for a development of this size. An accident on the narrow (main) road to Hastings can cut off the village for hours.

We shouldn't be building on agricultural land at a time when we need it to be producing food so that our country can be self sustainable and not reliant on imports. I also believe that the proposed development isn't suitable for providing housing to those who need it. The infrastrure is not there and it will end up being a bolt hole for second home owners and holiday lets and not affordble to most young families. There is limited public transtport making people reliant on using cars thus further increasing traffic on the already narrow and dangerous Fairlight Road. It is difficult enough as it is to get a Doctors appointment and the influx of additional people will make it worse. Another important consideration is there are already many houses in Fairlight that remain unsold, why build more?

I have objected to this plan for Fairlight and will do so again.
1.The plan for houses on a field which floods and in an area which has poor drainage makes no sense and will result in a multitude of problems.
2. The houses are described as affordable but will not reduce the housing issues since they will be too expensive for the majority of people in the Hastings area.
3. The available amenities in Fairlight are minimal - no school, no doctor's surgery, no comprehensive shop which are required for families and older people.
4. The transport links are minimal which means more traffic and the need for cars. Cycling for families is dangerous and we see no children on bikes in the local area. It is also too hilly for children and older people.
5. Access to the sight will be extremely dangerous. The bend where the road access is planned has limited visibility. Walking access from the sight to Fairlight is very dangerous.
6. The experience of a new development in Fairlight has been extremely negative. The Market Garden Site in Lower Waites Lane is an eyesore and properties are still for sale. The houses are not in keeping with the area and residents have little faith in how any new development will enhance the area. We were not listened to and the result is a carbuncle in the centre of a low level residential village.

National Trust Representation on Rother Local Plan 2025-2042,
Draft (Regulation 18) Development Strategy and Site Allocations March 2026

With our staff, members, volunteers and supporters, the National Trust is the biggest conservation charity in Europe. We protect and care for places so people and nature can thrive. Many millions share the belief that nature, beauty and history are for everyone. So we look after the nation’s coastline, historic sites, countryside and green spaces, ensuring everyone benefits. For everyone, for ever.

The National Trust welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Rother Local Plan 2025-2042, Development Strategy and Site Allocation consultation at Regulation 18.

Q27. Do you have any comments on the proposed site allocation in Fairlight Cove detailed in Policy FA1?

The National Trust is the owner and custodian of land at Fairlight and Old Marsham Farm which extends over 93ha, being two adjoining sites which lie to the north east of the application site. At its closest the distance between the application site and National Trust land is 450m. National Trust Fairlight lies to the east of the Pett Level Road and Old Marsham Farm lies to the west. The Trust’s land features a rolling landscape, mainly in agricultural use (pasture) with significant blocks of ancient woodland (Market Wood and Stumblet Wood), marshland and a stretch of coastline (chalk cliffs). There are two SSSIs on National Trust land: the Hastings Cliffs to Pett Beach SSSI and the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI.

The National Trust’s primary concern with potential site allocation FA1 Land east of Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove is the potential for foul and surface water discharge from the proposed development to have a detrimental impact on the water quality of the ordinary watercourse which adjoins the application site along its southern boundary. This drainage ditch flows in a north easterly direction for approximately 600m before discharging into the Fairlight Wastewater Treatment Works (FWwTW). The FWwTW sits within and is surrounded by National Trust land. The stream then flows north and drains into the Royal Military Canal, then via the River Brede to the sea at Rye. The Trust’s concern relates to the risk of pollution to watercourses which cross National Trust land arising from spills at combined sewer overflows (CSOs) within the locality of Fairlight. The National Trust has significant concerns about the existing poor water quality of the watercourse (see National Trust comment to planning application RR/2025/1462/P for Biotic Index Survey results) and it is evident that measures need to be taken by Southern Water, as Statutory Undertaker, to bring about improvements in drainage infrastructure, irrespective of whether this proposed housing development is approved or not.

The Water Framework Directive sets legally binding environmental objectives through river basin planning to prevent further deterioration of water quality in the UK and to ensure that all water bodies achieve good ecological and chemical status by at least 2027. Public bodies are required to ‘have regard’ to the WFD environmental objectives when making decisions that could affect the quality of the water environment and therefore new development must be in accordance with the Directive. Water quality must therefore be a key consideration for the LPA, as competent authority in allocating potential development sites, particularly in Fairlight.

The sewer network serving Fairlight acts as a combined sewer. During flood events the capacity of local sewers is exceeded, as evidenced on the Environment Agencies Storm Overflow Spill Frequency Monitoring Portal, and foul water flows into the Ordinary watercourse causing pollution. Avoiding such events can only be achieved by upgrading the local foul and surface water drainage system to provide sufficient capacity to cater for existing demand, irrespective of the additional load that would arise if this site is allocated and subsequently developed.

As wastewater undertakers Southern Water have a duty under the Water Industry Act to provide additional drainage capacity as and when it is required to accommodate planned development. In terms of asset management, it would not be in the best interests for Southern Water to provide new wastewater infrastructure until there is certainty that the development will come forward. It will therefore be critical, that if future development is permitted there should be assurances given that the proposed foul drainage will ensure that the increased volume of sewage arising from the housing development does not result in polluting incidents and cause the quality of the watercourse to deteriorate further.

Whilst the Trust supports criterion 9, which will require development to ‘make an acceptable connection to the local sewerage system in liaison with the service provider’, it is recommended that policy wording is strengthened to ensure that without any doubt there is adequate capacity at FWwTW to accommodate future development on this site. Suggested change to policy wording as follows, ‘Make an acceptable connection to the local sewerage system in liaison with the service provider, and ensure sufficient capacity within the relevant waste water treatment works, including during storm events for the development to be accommodated without negative effect on the receiving environment’.

It is recommended that any foul sewer design the developer puts forward should be worked up with Southern Water and show both on-site and off-site capacity as well as Fairlight WwTW capacity considerations, and how peak foul flows generated from the proposed development are to be processed and managed along the entire 3.5km route to the protected Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI and RAMSAR sites. This is to ensure design outcomes will contribute to meeting the WFD environmental objectives and provide the competent authority (LPA) with enough evidence to carefully assess whether development is likely to have a significant effect on the Habitat Sites, using the HRA process.

This site should be removed from the Local Plan/DASA due to longstanding and unresolvable issues. Numerous planning applications since the 1970s have been refused, primarily for sustainability, spatial, and water-related reasons. The site suffers from groundwater flooding caused by the Fairlight Reverse Fault, with surface water from elevated land forced to the surface, creating serious land stability risks. The southern boundary lies in Flood Zone 3, with a watercourse repeatedly flooding; adding 35 dwellings would exacerbate flood risk. A Combined Sewer Overflow discharges raw sewage up to 20 times per year; additional housing would increase untreated effluent and overwhelm the undersized sewer and treatment plant. The site fails sequential testing, surface water management, and sewer infrastructure criteria, and likely exceeds treatment capacity. Fairlight Cove is unsustainable, with poor transport links, no local services, and unsafe access. Previous refusals demonstrate the site is not viable or safe for development.

Dear Rother District Council,

I sent a long response to your previous Local Plan consultation and I
have little to add. I think the plan is largely delusional and has no
relationship to the harsh reality of living in Rother. The roads are
difficult to drive on and we have had four new tyres in the last few
years, the rural bus service is irregular and unreliable, the local GP
Surgery is oversubscribed. In Fairlight the issues of flooding, surface
water, drainage and sewage, make life difficult. One resident tested
positive for ecoli and their family frequently experience nausea from
sewage incidents.

The Central Government reliance on private sector developers building
new homes to grow the economy has little to do with planning
applications. Meeting the Government housing targets will not meet the
needs of those on the lowest incomes in temporary accomodation. Quite
the opposite, it will increase the number of buy to let landlords, air
b&b's and housing with fleecehold arrangements, paying management fees
for garss cutting, SUDS maintenance.

It would be more honest to start with the data of how many planning
permissions have already been granted in Rother.

How many empty properties are there?

How many brownfield sites?

How many under occupied houses are there?

How many times has Rother prosecuted any developers or served any
injunctions for TPO's?

We live in Fairlight near the doomed Market Garden Development, now the
subject of national research due to the environmental harm caused and
the fact that one of the houses is built so near a watercourse, the
stream bank has collapsed. This will be part of Rothers legacy, all be
it the Planning Inspectorate approved it at the end, but It was always
supported by Planning Officers. The "Landscape Management Plan" removed
all the historic hedgerow, most of the trees and shrubs. Only one house
out of 16 sold to another developer. The rest have had to go to rent as
no one will be able to get insurance. Never an apology, never any face
to face meetings with residents. 17 individuals are moving out of
Fairlight as the Market Garden Site is such an eye sore. 4 households
have already left.

I am opposed to the East Field/Wakehams Field development as there is no
demand for housing that has no walkway to the village. You have to cross
the main road twice and on a blind bend across a fast road. The repeated
attempts to build on this underwater site make people move out of the
village.

We will be glad when Rother is no more and we are part of a unitary
authority with a functioning complaints department.

When Developers make planning applications it should be Southern Water
that is required to provide proper data: how many storm overflows, water
quality testing, how many man hole covers lifted, how many call outs.
Planning should be data driven, not "Planning Income" for cash strapped
local authorities.

I'm sorry if this response does not meet your Consultation format, but I
don't have time to fill out the form it was too long.

Fairlight Parish Council - Response to Local Plan Consultation.

Q1) The overall objectives are acceptable. However, in Section 5, the proposed amount of development in the Bexhill area is excessive. It raises the question of why the Bexhill–Hastings link road is not being progressed as initially planned and discussed. Developments on the Hastings Fringe must be carefully evaluated to ensure genuine sustainability, without placing undue strain on existing road networks due to reliance on private vehicles. In Section 8, the proposed sustainable transport hierarchy is unlikely to be effective in rural areas. Achieving a truly sustainable transport model in these locations would require extensive and significant infrastructure upgrades.

Q2) The target appears reasonable when taking into account the demographic changes in Rother. However, many of the proposed sites are scattered, selective, and appear to have been chosen primarily based on availability. A significant number of these locations are not sustainable, making reliance on private motor vehicles almost inevitable.

Q3) The target seems reasonable given the demographic changes in Rother. However, many of the proposed sites are scattered and appear to have been selected mainly for their availability. Numerous locations are unsustainable, making reliance on private vehicles almost unavoidable.

Q4) Although the need is relatively small, these sites should be located closer to major link roads. It is noted that Battle currently has a cluster of sites; would it not be more appropriate to locate them along the A21, A259, or A27?

Q5) Infrastructure upgrades must correspond to the locations of major new allocations. Bexhill, Battle, and Rye, along with their proposed developments, will all require significant infrastructure improvements.

Q6) The proposed strategic gap infill between Fairlight and Hastings, and to some extent Crowhurst towards Hastings, would conflict with existing spatial policies. Unsustainable rural infill is also problematic due to insufficient infrastructure, leading to increased reliance on private vehicles to access essential amenities.

Regarding development between Hastings and Fairlight, a comprehensive assessment of flooding risks in Marsham Valley is essential. While most of the area falls within Flood Zone 1, the terrain slopes for approximately one and a half miles into areas already designated as Flood Zone 3. Any additional development within Marsham Valley would increase the risk of flooding downstream at Pett Level and beyond. Furthermore, the C92 road is already constrained by its width and steepness, and additional traffic would exacerbate existing issues, creating further detriment.

Q7) To preserve the character and appeal of Rother’s villages and rural areas, a lower allocation for villages with development boundaries would likely be more appropriate for the communities affected.

Q8) With 83% of the district falling within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL), some development in the area is inevitable. However, it is the scale of certain proposed sites that poses a risk of harm. While it is straightforward to meet housing targets by focusing on site availability, many of the larger sites in rural, unsustainable locations are unnecessary. Greater emphasis should be placed on development in areas where sustainability objectives can be achieved and infrastructure upgrades are more cost-effective.

Q9) With such a significant increase in both housing and employment floor space in the Bexhill area, the road network will need to be addressed to accommodate this growth. There is no doubt that the link road connection to the A21 will experience a substantial increase in traffic. Rother, ESCC, and National Highways will need to address this issue. The new connecting layout has been poorly designed to manage this level of growth. The original concept for the link road included the possibility of a trunk connection to join the A21 north of Battle, which now appears to be a necessity.

Q10) The growth is substantial and requires the necessary infrastructure to be delivered without fail. Although some development in the northern area takes advantage of the link road, this could be expanded to reduce the pressure of infill in other parts of the town. There are, without doubt, significant challenges to address regarding roads and traffic around Little Common..

QA|11) The width and condition of Rock Lane and Austin Way is concerning. At present, these roads cannot accommodate the planned developments. Any building sites where surface water drains into Marsham Valley should be carefully assessed due to existing flooding issues and the harmful effects on SSSI and Ramsar sites

Q13) A disproportionate number of housing allocation for Peasmarsh considering its sewage capacity.

Q15) The objectives are reasonable. However, as has been seen in the past, farming and arable land outside development boundaries, when ‘offered up’ by landowners, has later been incorporated within development boundaries. Provided that such actions are not repeated, as they have been previously, the strategy should be effective.

Q 16) As per question 4

Site allocation response.

Fairlight Cove Policy reference: FA1

This site should be removed from the Local Plan/DASA once and for all for the following reasons.
This site has had numerous planning applications submitted for development dating back to the 1970s. All have been refused by Rother, and many have failed on appeal. The reasons for refusal have consistently related to spatial and sustainability strategies, and, most importantly, water issues, both surface and sewage, which cannot be adequately addressed.
The site is subject to groundwater flooding. Fairlight Cove suffers from unique subsurface problems caused by two main earth fault lines: the Haddocks Fault and the Fairlight Cove Reverse Fault. The Fairlight Reverse Fault crosses this site and is responsible for the majority of groundwater issues. Water from the elevated land at Fairlight Village and Hastings Country Park flows downhill to the lowest-lying land and is forced to the surface by this underground fault. Any development of any size, even with attenuation SUDS, could potentially result in land collapse. No land stability study has ever been conducted for this site, and this risk has been overlooked for years, despite the known dangers of development.
In addition to the natural fault, there are other water-related issues. The southern boundary is in Flood Zone 3 and contains a watercourse that flows through the lower part of Fairlight Cove into the Marsham Brook system. This area has flooded numerous times, and the addition of 35 dwellings would exacerbate this flooding. Furthermore, there is a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) on the site that currently discharges raw sewage into the watercourse around 20 times per year, contaminating watercourses all the way to SSSI and Ramsar sites. Connecting 35 dwellings would further strain the local treatment plant, which is already handling a population of approximately 700–800, well below its design capacity of 1,500. The CSO on the site is served by a 450mm sewer, while the outgoing sewer for site connection is only 175mm. Existing back pressure causes the CSO discharges, and additional housing would increase this pressure, resulting in further untreated effluent and stormwater being released. The additional flood risk and watercourse contamination are unacceptable.
The most recent planning refusal appeal was not upheld, primarily because the site had not been sequentially tested. This requirement still applies and must be met for any planning application. With 14 potential sites identified within a two-mile radius in the latest HELAA, and given the known surface water and sewage issues, this site would not qualify for an exception and would fail a sequential test.
Considering the water hierarchy, this site fails on the first three criteria: sequential testing, surface water flooding, and local sewer infrastructure. It would also likely fail on treatment plant capacity, despite Southern Water’s current statements. Recently obtained release records via a Freedom of Information request confirm that the treatment plant is operating beyond its designed capacity.
Beyond the inherent and unresolvable water issues, the site also fails on sustainability, spatial, and transport grounds. Fairlight Cove is not a service village and lacks essential amenities. The only pedestrian access to the site is via a discontinuous, unlit, and narrow footpath less than 2 metres wide. Sustainable transport cannot be achieved; private vehicles would be the only practical means to reach amenities, most of which are in Hastings. The nearest NHS provision is in Sedlescombe or Westfield. Due to its location, the site would be highly visible as a satellite development within the High Weald Landscape. The access road crosses a highway drainage SUDS network in a known flood zone and is positioned in a dangerous location with limited visibility.
This site is not viable, as evidenced by the repeated refusals of planning applications and the extensive water-related challenges. Simply being offered in a call for sites and meeting housing requirement figures does not make it a suitable or safe site for development.

Dear Sir / Madam,
Rother Local Plan Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) (January 2026)
Welbeck Strategic Land III Limited (“Welbeck Land”) control the land east of Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove
(the “Site”), which is identified under draft Policy FA1 for approximately 35 dwellings.
These representations are submitted in response to Rother Local Plan Development Strategy and Site
Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) (January 2026) (“Draft Local Plan”). They relate specifically to the allocation
of the Site, which represents a sustainable development opportunity capable of supporting the growth and
vitality of Fairlight Cove.
Welbeck Land respond in particular to the following consultation question::
a) Q27. Do you have any comments on the proposed site allocation in Fairlight Cove, detailed in Policy FA1?

Introduction
The Site represents a sustainable and suitable location for residential development, having previously been
identified and allocated under Policy FAC2 of the adopted Development and Site Allocations Local Plan
(December 2019).
Welbeck Land support the retention of the Site within the Draft Local Plan for the delivery of approximately
35 dwellings. The proposed allocation appropriately recognises the Site’s suitability, availability and capacity
to contribute towards Fairlight’s housing requirement over the plan period.
The Site’s deliverability is clearly evidenced by the submission of a live outline planning application (Ref:
RR/2025/1462/P) in August 2025 for up to 35 dwellings. The application is supported by a comprehensive
suite of technical assessments and demonstrates that the Site is capable of delivering the proposed quantum
of development. The Site is therefore available, suitable and deliverable, and is capable of contributing to the housing trajectory in the early years of the plan period. However, Welbeck Land raise concerns in respect of specific requirements set out within draft Policy FA1, as outlined below.
Elderly Occupancy Restriction:
Draft Policy FA1 includes the following requirement: “ii. Provide at least 50% of the dwellings as appropriately designed, age-restricted housing for older people;”
Welbeck Land object to the proposed requirement for an age-restricted housing provision of at least 50%.
This requirement is not justified and would have a significant adverse impact on the viability and deliverability of the Site. A marketing report prepared by Searls Land confirms that the imposition of an age restriction would materially reduce market demand and consequently undermine scheme viability. Feedback from both SME and PLC housebuilders active in the local market suggest that such a restriction would materially reduce developer interest and appetite.
The requirement therefore introduces a clear risk to delivery, contrary to the need for the plan to be effective.
Furthermore, the requirement is not necessary to achieve the Council’s objectives in respect of housing choice. The live outline planning application already proposes a proportion of bungalows, a housing typology which is typically attractive to older persons and downsizers. This approach provides flexibility and responds to market demand without imposing an artificial and restrictive occupancy condition.
In this context, the proposed requirement is not justified, as it is not supported by proportionate evidence, nor is it the most appropriate mechanism to meet identified needs. Accordingly, the fixed age-restriction should be removed.
Financial Contribution Towards Doctors’ Surgeries
Draft Policy FA1 includes the following requirement: “x. Include a financial contribution towards the improvement of doctors’ surgeries in the locality in lieu of a serviced plot;”
Welbeck Land object to this requirement on the basis that it is not consistent with national policy or statutory tests.
As established through the previous appeal on the Site (Ref: APP/U1430/W/21/3283287), the Inspector concluded:
“The appeal scheme would not include the doctor’s surgery as the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) have confirmed that it is not necessary. As a result, there would be no conflict with Policy FAC2 on this account. This is because the provision of the doctor’s surgery was only a requirement if confirmed by the CCG through a business case.”
No updated evidence has been provided to demonstrate that a supplementary healthcare contribution is now required to mitigate a site-specific impact arising from the proposed development. Planning obligations must satisfy the statutory tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). Specifically, obligations must be:
a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) Directly related to the development; and
c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.
In addition, Rother District Council have an adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule (December 2015). Healthcare infrastructure is intended to be funded through CIL, unless a clear and evidenced site-specific mitigation requirement is identified.
In the absence of robust evidence demonstrating a direct and specific impact on local healthcare provision arising from this development, the proposed requirement fails to satisfy Regulation 122 and would result in unjustified double counting.
The policy is therefore not justified and is inconsistent with national policy. Accordingly, this financial contribution requirement should be removed.
Recommendation:
In light of the concerns set out above, Welbeck Land hereby request the following amendments to draft Policy FA1: Removal of criteria ii and x.
These amendments are necessary to ensure that the policy is justified, effective, and consistent with national policy, while also improving the deliverability of the site, thereby contributing to the overall soundness of the Draft Local Plan.

Supporting Documents:
We have included the following documents within our call for sites submission:
1. Site Application Boundary;
2. Indicative Masterplan (RR/2025/1462/P);
3. Marketing Report by Searls Land.
We trust that these comments are useful at this stage. By way of this letter, Welbeck Land reserve the right to comment on further rounds of consultation and attend the Examination in Public.
If you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Welbeck Strategic Land III Limited